tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10220498.post7067458643946417926..comments2024-03-21T15:59:25.263-05:00Comments on Math Teacher Mambo: More Memory Tools ...Shireen Dadmehrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16282965851939089408noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10220498.post-12389632404234775512010-11-07T11:27:37.040-06:002010-11-07T11:27:37.040-06:00I agree with you that the names are random. I gues...I agree with you that the names are random. I guess I'm more concerned with them learning to memorize something and attaching it to a meaningful implication in a proof, and knowing when to recognize and use which reason.Shireen Dadmehrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16282965851939089408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10220498.post-88850023026387915382010-11-07T11:07:52.281-06:002010-11-07T11:07:52.281-06:00Real problem here is that the names are not standa...Real problem here is that the names are not standard, so a lot of effort is going into remembering the special names your text uses for modus ponens and modus tollens.<br /><br />Hmmph. Even those names, old-fashioned, might not be universally recognized.<br /><br />The most common texts (until recently) in New York State used "Law of Detachment" and "Modus Tollens". My hyper-traditional text and Discovering Geometry, at the other extreme, both use both Latin terms.<br /><br />The methods course I took that covered some of this (10 or so years ago) used two different names, both English, neither "detachment"<br /><br />Up to me? I'd explain what happens: "affirm the hypothesis" (or "affirm the antecedent") would be one form, and "deny the conclusion" would be the second. It is, after all, the forms that are immutable. The names range from whimsical to confusing to just strange.<br /><br />(I know, I know, it's not really up to me. So I teach 'em my way first, and then I reveal the mystical names when the unit ends).<br /><br />JonathanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10220498.post-72651788310217810942010-11-02T21:32:56.315-05:002010-11-02T21:32:56.315-05:00Here's the reason I make them memorize the law...Here's the reason I make them memorize the laws. They work up to doing flow proofs with logic statements and then flow proofs with geometry concepts, and I need them to know how the how proof goes together: you need statements and reasons/justifications of why you can make the claims you do in your proof. So I make them memorize the laws of inference to use as their proof reasons for multistepped proofs. Voila! entryway into other proofs.Shireen Dadmehrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16282965851939089408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10220498.post-55356676638275251302010-11-02T21:19:34.971-05:002010-11-02T21:19:34.971-05:00Naming the rules of inference is one of the most u...Naming the rules of inference is one of the most useless things to do in a logic unit. I'd like students to be able to make correct inferences, but I could care less about whether they remember the completely arbitrary names associated with them. (You can reduce them all to just one rule: early theorem-proving programs just used "resolution".)<br /><br />I think you are putting the effort into the wrong part of the unit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com